Overview/Background
I will do my best to let you debate the round as you see fit, vote according to the flow, and let you put me in whatever paradigm you deem best. Hopefully this clears up my assumptions.
I competed in NFA-LD at Western Kentucky University for three years and have had brief exposure to other debate formats.
Speed/Delivery/Decorum
I am fine with speed. You should do your best to be clear. Lack of clarity is typically more of a reason as to why I would stop flowing rather than speed. The same applies to blippiness. Speed should also be, to a certain extent, mutual between debaters; as long as you can understand each other, I'm fine. Slow debaters are more than capable of beating fast debaters, and speed kritiks are likely to make me start laughing at you. As per the rules, I find spreading “pleasant, comprehensible, and persuasive in tone,” so go for it. And I've yet to see anyone reported to the tournament director because of encouraging spreading...
I fully reserve to right to drop you or give you low speaks if I perceive you as overly aggressive/belligerent, dishonest, or if you use any sort of exclusionary language, insults, or pejoratives toward your opponent (e.g. insulting some one on the basis of their sex or gender (etc.) during cross-x). These are typically hallmarks of both bad debaters and bad people.
Argumentation/Ev
Quality over quantity. Make comparisons for me; I think evidence comparison is absolutely essential. If you want me to read a specific card, tell me to do so, otherwise, I am unlikely to ask for it. You should share your evidence and allow citations (pictures) to be taken of what you read. Not doing so is silly. Full citations should be available and included, but do not always need to be read.
Kritiks
I am fine with (most) kritiks and am familiar with critical theory. Preferably they will link to the aff and not just to the topic. You need to win the alt and the framework. I'd prefer to see further research and development into a kritikal position rather than just blatant backfile-mining (deep eco, dedev, etc.) as I will not be as easily persauded.
T/Procedurals/Theory
Anyone who claims topicality is not a voting issue should not be judging. If so much as breathed upon, RVIs will evaporate off my flow. I evaluate T through the lens of competing interpretations and the standards debate; reasonability rarely, if ever, persuasive.
Spec positions are usually fun ways for me to develop an inverse relationship between the number you run and the number of speaker points awarded. They are justified in rare cases.
Rules/Stock Issues/Paradigms
I will try to place myself in the rules of NFA-LD rather than outright policymaker. Any claims concerning the rules should be warranted beyond “the rules.” They are usually beneficial.
Counterplans
I assume counterplans are conditional unless noted otherwise. Philosophical competitiveness, etc., have no merit to me. Competition is derived from a comparison of the plan to the counterplan/permutation to the counterplan alone.
Strategy, etc.
I like over/underviews. Explain how/why you win with them. Write my ballot for me. I believe NFA-LD lends itself strongly to collapsing to one position to win a ballot. Case defense alone is often insufficient to justify a ballot, even if it's terminal. I am a proponent of “gutchecking” affirmatives/positions—if, at the end of the round, I still have no idea what your case does or it somehow shifts between each speech, expect a loss.
I will do my best to let you debate the round as you see fit, vote according to the flow, and let you put me in whatever paradigm you deem best. Hopefully this clears up my assumptions.
I competed in NFA-LD at Western Kentucky University for three years and have had brief exposure to other debate formats.
Speed/Delivery/Decorum
I am fine with speed. You should do your best to be clear. Lack of clarity is typically more of a reason as to why I would stop flowing rather than speed. The same applies to blippiness. Speed should also be, to a certain extent, mutual between debaters; as long as you can understand each other, I'm fine. Slow debaters are more than capable of beating fast debaters, and speed kritiks are likely to make me start laughing at you. As per the rules, I find spreading “pleasant, comprehensible, and persuasive in tone,” so go for it. And I've yet to see anyone reported to the tournament director because of encouraging spreading...
I fully reserve to right to drop you or give you low speaks if I perceive you as overly aggressive/belligerent, dishonest, or if you use any sort of exclusionary language, insults, or pejoratives toward your opponent (e.g. insulting some one on the basis of their sex or gender (etc.) during cross-x). These are typically hallmarks of both bad debaters and bad people.
Argumentation/Ev
Quality over quantity. Make comparisons for me; I think evidence comparison is absolutely essential. If you want me to read a specific card, tell me to do so, otherwise, I am unlikely to ask for it. You should share your evidence and allow citations (pictures) to be taken of what you read. Not doing so is silly. Full citations should be available and included, but do not always need to be read.
Kritiks
I am fine with (most) kritiks and am familiar with critical theory. Preferably they will link to the aff and not just to the topic. You need to win the alt and the framework. I'd prefer to see further research and development into a kritikal position rather than just blatant backfile-mining (deep eco, dedev, etc.) as I will not be as easily persauded.
T/Procedurals/Theory
Anyone who claims topicality is not a voting issue should not be judging. If so much as breathed upon, RVIs will evaporate off my flow. I evaluate T through the lens of competing interpretations and the standards debate; reasonability rarely, if ever, persuasive.
Spec positions are usually fun ways for me to develop an inverse relationship between the number you run and the number of speaker points awarded. They are justified in rare cases.
Rules/Stock Issues/Paradigms
I will try to place myself in the rules of NFA-LD rather than outright policymaker. Any claims concerning the rules should be warranted beyond “the rules.” They are usually beneficial.
Counterplans
I assume counterplans are conditional unless noted otherwise. Philosophical competitiveness, etc., have no merit to me. Competition is derived from a comparison of the plan to the counterplan/permutation to the counterplan alone.
Strategy, etc.
I like over/underviews. Explain how/why you win with them. Write my ballot for me. I believe NFA-LD lends itself strongly to collapsing to one position to win a ballot. Case defense alone is often insufficient to justify a ballot, even if it's terminal. I am a proponent of “gutchecking” affirmatives/positions—if, at the end of the round, I still have no idea what your case does or it somehow shifts between each speech, expect a loss.